4 ms·

Our culture is overly obsessed with the concept of certification as being a necessary precursor for professional legitimization. Shakespeare did not have anythi

by boh 5y ago

Our culture is overly obsessed with the concept of certification as being a necessary precursor for professional legitimization. Shakespeare did not have anything close to what we'd interpret as a modern education and it's interesting that you regard some imaginary English teacher as a major influence. Artists for the majority of history learned most of their trades on the job. We mythologize the education system as the only legitimate venue for learning when it's a fairly new invention. Robinson's point wasn't attacking teachers, but the bureaucratic factory farm of universal education that does more to categorize and institutionalize labor, then foster creativity and critical thinking.

bambax 5y ago
I didn't bring up Shakespeare's English teacher; Robinson did. But there have been teachers since at least Antiquity. And speaking of Antiquity, where do you think Shakespeare learned about Caesar, Cleopatra, Alexander? (Not by watching Youtube videos.) Here's an extract of a critic of the book "How the Classics Made Shakespeare" by Jonathan Bate: > Bate reminds us that in Shakespeare’s day, a boy from a solidly middle-class family like his would have gotten a rigorous classical education even at a regional local school in Stratford. In Elizabethan England the core of education was learning Latin and then reading and translating into English the Roman classics, including Ovid, Horace, Virgil, and Cicero. It was thus largely the classics that initially shaped Shakespeare’s basic conception of literature, offering him models of lyric poetry, comedy, and tragedy that he followed throughout his career. https://isi.org/modern-age/shakespeare-and-classical-antiquity/ https://isi.org/modern-age/shakespeare-and-classical-antiqui...
datavirtue 5y ago
I took my son out of school in 4th-5th grade and did absolutely zero formal education with him. He entered college at 15, and has since noped out (at 18). Very sharp kid who is not terribly inspired by the prospect of working for any of our institutions. I'm quickly joining him.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  What's he doing instead?
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    Playing around with Blender. Writing.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I hate my job and would like to "nope out", but I don't see anything better out there. I have to support myself and my family too. Are there other options?
martingoodson 5y ago
This is wrong. Of course Shakespeare had a formal education. "If William Shakespere had the grammar school training of his day - or its equivalent - he had as good a formal literary training as had any of his contemporaries. At least, no miracles are required to account for such knowledge and techniques from the classics as he exhibits. Stratford grammar school will furnish all that is required." Baldwin, T.W. William Shakspere's Small Latine and Lesse Greeke. You could have just opened a history book book to find this out. One of those skills you learn in a bureaucratic factory farm.
- boh 5y ago
  You also learn to frame all previous learning within modern equivalents. Don't be surprised if academics choose to wedge their professional identities as the predetermining factor of genius. What counted as formal education of the past is barely applicable to the education systems of the present. Shakespeare didn't spend half of his teen years getting coached in state and national examinations, nor were his teachers subject to performance targets that demanded test results from their students above all else.
  - martingoodson 5y ago
    Perhaps we should adopt the Elizabethan school system then. All lessons were in Latin and students were punished for speaking English. 'Memorising texts and performing endlessly tedious translations of Latin phrases was the norm [...]. Creating situations of competition between pupils with an atmosphere of fear of physical punishment and humiliation was the usual approach.'[1] Modern students might find a few exams preferable to this. [1] https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1583/education-in-the-elizabethan-era/ https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1583/education-in-the-e...
Spooky23 5y ago
He also lived in a society they made more sense in some ways at the micro level. Artisans would learn on the job, but recall that 90% of the population were peasants with rudimentary skills. It’s popular to bitch about the school system, but the reality is we churn out nurses and doctors and programmers and engineers by the millions. Many/most of the problems are really about broader social issues that schools cannot address.
watwut 5y ago
> Artists for the majority of history learned most of their trades on the job. We mythologize the education system as the only legitimate venue for learning when it's a fairly new invention. People in this discussion keep bringing heavily educated individuals as examples of "schooling not needed". I don't know about Shakespeare specifically, but people use Bach or Einstein or Mozart as examples. People who had top education and/or came from families that made sure they were learning from early age - with teachers, tutors and formal schools. If there is mythology alive, it is that these people had no schooling and went by raw uneducated talent purely. People just assume so and are so certain they dont even bother to verify.
- boh 5y ago
  Those people had teachers but no "schooling" i.e. mass produced education. No person prior to the twentieth century had the schooling that you have and yet schooling has now monopolized the legitimization of competence and learning.
  - watwut 5y ago
    They actually did. They went to actual schools - with standard programs all fellow students had to go through. Einstein specifically went to mass produced education and lived in twentieth century. > No person prior to the twentieth century had the schooling that you have and yet schooling has now monopolized the legitimization of competence and learning. Compulsory schooling did not started in twentieth century. It existed since 18th century. Austria has it since 1774.
georgeecollins 5y ago
>> Our culture is overly obsessed with the concept of certification as being a necessary precursor for professional legitimization. This! When I was a kid, no one thought making video games was a job, people made jokes about that. I was lucky enough to get to do it and have some success and work with many very successful people in that field. They all figured it out as they went along. Now my children are old enough to major in something that is approximately video games in college, although the name is fancier. By the way, teaching has become a great second career for my friends. I think it is always useful to learn to think critically about anything and video games are worthy of that criticism. But I think to really succeed in a medium you have to above all else really want to do it a lot and try things no one can teach you. School can only teach you a few things you would pick up quickly if you were actually doing it.
msla 5y ago
What people are obsessed with is the idea that someone's "good at" something as an inherent trait, as opposed to skill being learnable and, therefore, transferable. «Shakespeare was "good at" writing, therefore he must have the "good at writing" trait from birth», as opposed to «Shakespeare was a skilled author, so, while he had some amount of innate talent, he learned to write at some point, got progressively better at writing over time, and what we have is the end result of a learning process» which is the much more sensible interpretation. I'm old-fashioned enough to think there probably is such a thing as general intelligence, but g doesn't mean you're born knowing how to write a three-act play with believable character development and enough sex jokes to keep everyone amused. Ramifying whatever raw talent you have into an actual skill takes training.
- imbnwa 5y ago
  >What people are obsessed with is the idea that someone's "good at" something as an inherent trait, as opposed to skill being learnable and, therefore, transferable I use to coach high school policy debate in a major metropolitan public high school and the level of "I can't do this, I'm just not good at this" that shows up the minute kids encounter difficulty/obstacles, and specifically in non-physical labor, is mind-blowing. We tell children "anything is attainable if you put your mind to it" then turn around and imply to children through our actions, cause they're good at reading those, that some people have "it" and most don't, e.g. sequestering the smart kids into completely different tracks from the regular kids; math teachers demonstrating disappointment that a student doesn't understand something while praising the kid who grasps it much quicker. What's striking to me is that social media, and specifically IG culture, has made strides in tearing at this contradiction in the domain of personal appearance, e.g. not only weight loss/fitness transformation but even the celebration of 'confidence is all you need' for women with more robust bodies. But in the final analysis, I find physical accomplishment in our culture to still be a distinct domain from mental accomplishment.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    I agree up to a point and up to a certain level of achievement. But, for example, while I was good enough at math to get through an engineering program at a good school, I'm pretty confident that a physics or math degree would have been very tough and I doubt I could have done it. If I tried really hard and spent lots of time with the TAs? Maybe but I doubt it.

by boh 5y ago

bambax 5y ago

I didn't bring up Shakespeare's English teacher; Robinson did. But there have been teachers since at least Antiquity. And speaking of Antiquity, where do you think Shakespeare learned about Caesar, Cleopatra, Alexander? (Not by watching Youtube videos.) Here's an extract of a critic of the book "How the Classics Made Shakespeare" by Jonathan Bate: > Bate reminds us that in Shakespeare’s day, a boy from a solidly middle-class family like his would have gotten a rigorous classical education even at a regional local school in Stratford. In Elizabethan England the core of education was learning Latin and then reading and translating into English the Roman classics, including Ovid, Horace, Virgil, and Cicero. It was thus largely the classics that initially shaped Shakespeare’s basic conception of literature, offering him models of lyric poetry, comedy, and tragedy that he followed throughout his career. https://isi.org/modern-age/shakespeare-and-classical-antiquity/ https://isi.org/modern-age/shakespeare-and-classical-antiqui...

datavirtue 5y ago

I took my son out of school in 4th-5th grade and did absolutely zero formal education with him. He entered college at 15, and has since noped out (at 18). Very sharp kid who is not terribly inspired by the prospect of working for any of our institutions. I'm quickly joining him.

jimbokun 5y ago
What's he doing instead?
- datavirtue 5y ago
  Playing around with Blender. Writing.
giantg2 5y ago
I hate my job and would like to "nope out", but I don't see anything better out there. I have to support myself and my family too. Are there other options?

martingoodson 5y ago

This is wrong. Of course Shakespeare had a formal education. "If William Shakespere had the grammar school training of his day - or its equivalent - he had as good a formal literary training as had any of his contemporaries. At least, no miracles are required to account for such knowledge and techniques from the classics as he exhibits. Stratford grammar school will furnish all that is required." Baldwin, T.W. William Shakspere's Small Latine and Lesse Greeke. You could have just opened a history book book to find this out. One of those skills you learn in a bureaucratic factory farm.

boh 5y ago
You also learn to frame all previous learning within modern equivalents. Don't be surprised if academics choose to wedge their professional identities as the predetermining factor of genius. What counted as formal education of the past is barely applicable to the education systems of the present. Shakespeare didn't spend half of his teen years getting coached in state and national examinations, nor were his teachers subject to performance targets that demanded test results from their students above all else.
- martingoodson 5y ago
  Perhaps we should adopt the Elizabethan school system then. All lessons were in Latin and students were punished for speaking English. 'Memorising texts and performing endlessly tedious translations of Latin phrases was the norm [...]. Creating situations of competition between pupils with an atmosphere of fear of physical punishment and humiliation was the usual approach.'[1] Modern students might find a few exams preferable to this. [1] https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1583/education-in-the-elizabethan-era/ https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1583/education-in-the-e...

Spooky23 5y ago

He also lived in a society they made more sense in some ways at the micro level. Artisans would learn on the job, but recall that 90% of the population were peasants with rudimentary skills. It’s popular to bitch about the school system, but the reality is we churn out nurses and doctors and programmers and engineers by the millions. Many/most of the problems are really about broader social issues that schools cannot address.

watwut 5y ago

> Artists for the majority of history learned most of their trades on the job. We mythologize the education system as the only legitimate venue for learning when it's a fairly new invention. People in this discussion keep bringing heavily educated individuals as examples of "schooling not needed". I don't know about Shakespeare specifically, but people use Bach or Einstein or Mozart as examples. People who had top education and/or came from families that made sure they were learning from early age - with teachers, tutors and formal schools. If there is mythology alive, it is that these people had no schooling and went by raw uneducated talent purely. People just assume so and are so certain they dont even bother to verify.

boh 5y ago
Those people had teachers but no "schooling" i.e. mass produced education. No person prior to the twentieth century had the schooling that you have and yet schooling has now monopolized the legitimization of competence and learning.
- watwut 5y ago
  They actually did. They went to actual schools - with standard programs all fellow students had to go through. Einstein specifically went to mass produced education and lived in twentieth century. > No person prior to the twentieth century had the schooling that you have and yet schooling has now monopolized the legitimization of competence and learning. Compulsory schooling did not started in twentieth century. It existed since 18th century. Austria has it since 1774.

georgeecollins 5y ago

>> Our culture is overly obsessed with the concept of certification as being a necessary precursor for professional legitimization. This! When I was a kid, no one thought making video games was a job, people made jokes about that. I was lucky enough to get to do it and have some success and work with many very successful people in that field. They all figured it out as they went along. Now my children are old enough to major in something that is approximately video games in college, although the name is fancier. By the way, teaching has become a great second career for my friends. I think it is always useful to learn to think critically about anything and video games are worthy of that criticism. But I think to really succeed in a medium you have to above all else really want to do it a lot and try things no one can teach you. School can only teach you a few things you would pick up quickly if you were actually doing it.

msla 5y ago

What people are obsessed with is the idea that someone's "good at" something as an inherent trait, as opposed to skill being learnable and, therefore, transferable. «Shakespeare was "good at" writing, therefore he must have the "good at writing" trait from birth», as opposed to «Shakespeare was a skilled author, so, while he had some amount of innate talent, he learned to write at some point, got progressively better at writing over time, and what we have is the end result of a learning process» which is the much more sensible interpretation. I'm old-fashioned enough to think there probably is such a thing as general intelligence, but g doesn't mean you're born knowing how to write a three-act play with believable character development and enough sex jokes to keep everyone amused. Ramifying whatever raw talent you have into an actual skill takes training.

imbnwa 5y ago
>What people are obsessed with is the idea that someone's "good at" something as an inherent trait, as opposed to skill being learnable and, therefore, transferable I use to coach high school policy debate in a major metropolitan public high school and the level of "I can't do this, I'm just not good at this" that shows up the minute kids encounter difficulty/obstacles, and specifically in non-physical labor, is mind-blowing. We tell children "anything is attainable if you put your mind to it" then turn around and imply to children through our actions, cause they're good at reading those, that some people have "it" and most don't, e.g. sequestering the smart kids into completely different tracks from the regular kids; math teachers demonstrating disappointment that a student doesn't understand something while praising the kid who grasps it much quicker. What's striking to me is that social media, and specifically IG culture, has made strides in tearing at this contradiction in the domain of personal appearance, e.g. not only weight loss/fitness transformation but even the celebration of 'confidence is all you need' for women with more robust bodies. But in the final analysis, I find physical accomplishment in our culture to still be a distinct domain from mental accomplishment.
- ghaff 5y ago
  I agree up to a point and up to a certain level of achievement. But, for example, while I was good enough at math to get through an engineering program at a good school, I'm pretty confident that a physics or math degree would have been very tough and I doubt I could have done it. If I tried really hard and spent lots of time with the TAs? Maybe but I doubt it.